With all this news coverage about the Florida shooting, and stand your ground, an interesting question keeps running through my mind...

"If you live in a state that does not recognize stand-your-ground laws, what good is having a permit for a concealed weapon?"

thaughts?

You are still allowed to defend yourself. You may need to take a course to learn the rules, but that seems to just be common sense when wearing a weapon that can either save your life or bankrupt you, at the same time.

In Vermont we don't have any special laws regarding this, beyond "Common Law". And we are the most gun friendly state in the union. It all boils down to this. You can carry a gun and use it to protect yourself and your family. However, the law expects you will not go looking for trouble, that you will take all reasonable actions to avoid using deadly force, and that such force will be used only as a last resort. That really covers all circumstances. If I can safely run away from a person threatening me with a knife I'm expected to do so. But if I'm unable to avoid injury or death the law states I can use my gun to defend myself, including shooting another person. The bottom line is I didn't initiate the confrontation, I did everything possible to avoid it, and I used a firearm because I or my family was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm and there was no alternative. This isn't rocket science, yet we make it more complicated than it needs to be.

NC is very similar, except the instigator in a fight can NEVER start it and then claim SD nor can deadly force be used to prevent a simple assault, except below. That last part is the tricky part, at what point does it turn deadly, what if the victim is older or female, how does that alter it?

We also have the Castle Law, which basically says if someone attempts to commit a crime involving force or violence against you at your home, workplace or in your car you may respond with your CCW. You also have no duty to retreat in those three places. That's my opinion, consult your lawyer for an expert opinion.

Without laws like this you depend on demonstrating fear for your life or the lives of others and no other option than deadly force. IMO.

In Ohio, if not in home or vehicle, I'm required to ATTEMPT to retreat from a confrontation, IF I can do so in PERFECT SAFETY. That's IT.

I have no duty to run, take a beating, beg for my life or anything of the sort. I just have to TRY to leave. If you thwart that attempt, you'll likely get a sucking chest wound for your efforts.

"IN PERFECT SAFETY" is a pretty low bar to meet.

One of the first things I learned in ROTC was that you CANNOT outrun a bullet. I don't plan to try.

I was a lousy runner as a 21 year old Infantry 2lt. I'm not one iota faster at 54. I'm not going to outrun an assailant. I have neither duty nor intention to try.

I don't go looking for fights, nor do I go to places where other people do. If you leave me alone, I'll return the favor. If you don't leave me alone, I'll ignore you... if you let me. If that doesn't work, I'll move along... if you let me. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't try to humor you. I won't joke around with you. I won't engage you in any way beyond, "Leave me alone." I'm not what they call a "people person". If that doesn't work, you're going to have a VERY bad day.

if you saw somebody you thought was suspicious, and you followed him, and called the police on him, then stopped following him, and went back to your car where the person you called the police on for acting suspicious to you now punches you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking you to the ground then starts banging your head into the cement, you are still allowed to shoot them.

__________________
I'm only allowed 30 characters

It's funny what happens when you try to legislate common sense. If you need to shoot someone to live, shoot them. If you need to shoot someone to prevent a serious injury, shoot them. If you have to ask what a serious injury is, go ahead and shoot them and the jury will decide for you. If I was on the jury and someone shot an unarmed man and walked away without a scratch, he'd better have a good lawyer and he'd better take the stand and testify convincingly. If he chose NOT to testify, he'd likely be looking at at least one guilty vote.

Honestly, so does Florida's law in so many words. They are already talking about revising it, before the investigation is even complete. Completely sackless politicians here.

See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground.

Under your first scenario, even though you didn't initiate the confrontation, you had to flee the confrontation rather than end it there.

If they are going to change ANYTHING about the Florida SYG, they need to put wording in there to the effect of "law not valid if you initiate the confrontation, initiate pursuing the individual, etc.

Not getting back to the Sanford case, there was a case recently where an off duty SECURITY GUARD followed what he thought of as a "suspicious vehicle" on a public road, they turned down a dirt road, the 2 guys in the car stopped, got out, confronted the security guard and he shot and killed them both from inside his car. One or both of them was unarmed, and he got off. I really think that is a stretch and he initiated the pursuit. You don't go looking for trouble. If the "current" story in the Martin case turns out to be the truth (Martin jumped Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was following him), I don't think I can fault Zimmerman for actually shooting, but he should not have been pursuing Martin.

I agree. I've got a bum knee, I can't outrun anyone.

Basically as long as 12 of your peers agree with your actions, all is well.

Nipster:

Quote: See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground. Quote.

Remember, I said "safely run away", not put myself in danger by running into traffic. "No questions asked"? You may well get a lot of questions, in front of a jury, and need to convince them that before shooting another person you did
everything "reasonable" to avoid doing so, including running away (if possible). And by the way, if you're ever in this situation, there are two things that will help you. First, convince the jury as described above. Second, convince the jury of your sincere remorse at having to shoot another person. Convince them that, on the one hand you're glad to be alive, but on the other you're sorry it was absolutely necessary to shoot another person. A little sympathy towards you will go a long ways. Again, remember if you're involved in a shooting there will be no such thing as "No questions asked".

Well said.

Exact;y.

Based on today's news that the kid had a juvenile record for assault, my belief at this point is that this is the typical case to two stupid people running into each other with the predictable result.

The kid deserved to be shot for jumping the guy and Zimmerman deserves to spend time in prison for playing cop.

The bottom line is that a CCW and the stand your ground law do not give you a badge. They pay cops to get shot and and to fight guys that think they can whip anyone. They don't give you a paycheck and a badge with a CCW.

I have had many arguments with guys who think that getting a CCW allows them to act likeJames Bond. I often wonder if Zimmerman was one of them.

I'll post my opinion after I talk with MR. Al Sharpton. He and Jesse Jerkson have all the answers.

__________________
Term limits!

This probably will be unpopular but what else is new, at least for me? Discounting a home invasion, I believe that no matter what the local laws are everyone has a moral duty to retreat if one can do so safely. I like CMORT666 will not be bullied but neither will I do something rash or stupid.
Understand that the taking of a life, no matter how legal or moral your actions were is a life changing event, and it’s not a positive event. I’m finally at the point in my life were I’ve been able to accumulate a few things and I’m not willing to be forced to giving these to someone’s relatives or a good criminal/civil defense attorney.

One problem in the Zimmerman incident, he was in a gated community, where he lived. Now per my understanding, the "stand your ground law" is irrelevant in this case, because Zimmerman was not on a public street. Geoff
Who notes the classic legal advice, "NEVER BE A TEST CASE!"

And THAT is the operative condition.

When the gun or knife comes out, you probably CAN'T retreat safely. As I said, "in perfect safety" is a pretty low bar.

I wholly agree with old bear. Having been a LEO I had multiple opportunities when I could have shot people yet did not. Why not? I was able to render solutions otherwise. Of course, a continuum of force policy was in effect. Though I have absolutely no reservations about using deadly force when required, I don't believe it should be the first resort...ever.

The shooter in the FL case was certainly "wrong" given the outcome. And, I would not be the least bit surprised if we learn the shooter was carrying a badge of some sort. But I digress...

Be safe.

Yes Sir that is a VERY low bar yet one of the hardest to decide when to cross, and once crossed you can't return.

Reading these posts, I feel led to interject one piece of factual info into the discussion, you can decide how it affects your thought process.

Anyone in here who's spent much time in LE training or self defense has has the fact that the average man with a knife in his hand and is within 21 feet of you can advance on you and knife you before you can clear leather and fire drilled in their heads. That fact has been researched/tested and proven multiple times. From my own point of view that means any commands given to a knife wielding individual are giving looking down the sights, not while "defusing" the situation by not having my gun drawn--just throwing this out for your consideration.

...I would also add if you think being shot is bad, you probably have never seen someone disemboweled etc by a knife or box cutter.

*** 21 feet does not apply to anyone named Jerry Miculek...you may feel free to make your own rules up...lol.

Stand Your ground is an interesting concept.

If I am facing a threat and I can just leave . Walk away or drive away. I could take that option . If by taking that option I feel that there is even a SMALL chance that I will get killed , I will NOT take that option . Am I being reasonable?

Also , how about protecting property vs. protecting life?

If I am having a cup of coffee on my porch and couple of people are trying to take my bike that is in front of the house and after I tell them to stop it and get lost they attack me. I may not try to run away

Will I be protecting Life? Or Property?

Because if I just let them take my bike , maybe they would never attack me. Or maybe they would (?)

Am I making any sense?

The fact that he was in a gated community has no bearing. Under FLA law, the stand your ground law applies "wherever you have a legal right to be", could be inside your house, place of business, parking lot, etc.

That said, it was his vigilante, wanna-be cop attitude which put him in the position to have to do this (which, as of the last version of the story I heard, makes it a legitimate SD/SYG). He should have just called the cops and stayed away from him.

Having a CCP does not give you the right to be a vigilante. You cannot defend property in Florida with lethal force. This is distinctly different from defending your self.

in Your opinion, is defending Your self from someone who got mad after You told them to leave Your property alone an Ok thing to do?

Why am I reading that as a leading or baiting type of question?

If you have to defend yourself for ANY reason then you are within your rights and covered by the law. If I look out the window and see someone trying to steal my car, I run outside shouting, then they come running at me, then I stand my ground and defend myself. I haven’t seen a single person say anything to the effect that you can just shoot someone for any reason other than self defense. This is part of the reason I’m such a big proponent of everyone being armed. It’s that whole “an armed society is a polite society” theme. If criminals know their lives may be on the line then they avoid those areas and focus on “gun free zones”. Time and again statistics show that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens are a deterrent to crime while easy targets continue to pay the price. None of this is difficult to understand unless you are purposefully trying to confuse the situation.

For me, when analyzing (from the comfort of my desk chair) the moral and legal issues of the use of deadly force in a self-defense encounter, the question is not "When CAN I shoot?" but rather, "When MUST I shoot?"

I'll avoid whenever possible, walk/run away if I can, but I am determined to prevail if I must meet force with force.

I think everyone needs to wait and get the whole story on the Zimmerman incident before rushing to judgement. There have been a few more details leaking out over the last few days that dispute the media reports that he just killed an innocent kid in cold blood. Apparently Zimmerman had a broken nose and a laceration on back of his head. Just simply following someone that appears suspicious is not a crime, at least not in Kentucky or Florida.

__________________
Go Big Blue

Who will be in court to testify that you stepped back?

Who will be in court to testify that Zimmerman did not push this guy to the point that he thought he had to fight?

M&P, that property question, I believe, has perplexed many people- myself included. If by 'bike' you mean a motorcycle, does that make a difference from a $50 bicycle? I don't know the answers, would like to. I imagine it boils down to the prosecutor, as usual.

I don't understand why this is even discussed.

Except in TX, if the guy is stealing your bile and you are on the porch you call the cops and be cool.

If you are on your bike in the driveway and he approaches you with a weapon and demands you bile or else he is going to naim or kill you, you shoot.

Property laws in almost all states say that you do not protect your property at the cost of a life.

I have no done any searches on it, but I suspect that arson of an occupied dwelling is an exception.

Ok. Ok.
May be its the way I asked the question.
I like to use examples too much LOL.

Ok. Lets say You are legally armed ( or just on Your property), someone tries to take Your property or does anything else that DIRECTLY offends You .

You say," Hey ! Stop doing this S..T! " , the person or people stop and turn agianst You ( attack You ).

You must now protect Your self. Right?
Protect Your self from what He/They are trying to do NOW.

Some people may say ," Well, if You did not say anytihing , this would never happen"

How do You feel about this ?
Just wondering?

in the free states, if some P O S is trying to steal your bike, you have a legal right to use less lethal or physical force (pushing them, punching them, taser, o.c.) to stop them. if they in turn attack you, you can use lethal force to stop them.

it really isnt that hard to understand unless you live in the third world states.

__________________
I'm only allowed 30 characters

It depends how mad they got.

Guy is on your property, you tell them to leave, they throw profanities at you and come up and sucker punch you, you have a decision to make. At that point, you would most likely be justified in using deadly force. In Florida anyway.

But you just cant brandish your weapon or shoot someone who is just trespassing or stealing your property. It dont work like that.

That is something no one has touched on yet. In Florida, if you have a CCP, you have the right to carry certain "less than lethal" devices like large containers of mace, stun guns, tazers, etc as well as firearms. Using my above example, someone coming at you, you can pull your mace and mace them. Escalating levels of aggression / force is taught in most CCP classes that you have to take to get your permit. No one says you have to use lethal force. Spray them with mace and if they keep coming or land a shot, you can escalate to deadly force if they continue to attack you.

One thing in your favor is that the license makes for much better FIREARMS TRANSPORTATION LAWS for you.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

Not really. Federal law provides for interstate transportation of firearms, even through the republik's of NY and CA. Here in Florida, the laws concerning firearms in a vehicle are virtually identical, depending on who you talk to. The statutes are difficult to understand. They state that a handgun in a vehicle must be "secured" and "concealed", if you have a CCP or not (if you dont have a CCP, you can transport a handgun/firearm that is "securely encased" and "concealed", and the statute does not specifically make an exception for CCP. Some people interpret the statute that grants persons with a CCP to carry concealed to mean that even in their car, it just has to be concealed, does not necessarily have to be encased. This could mean sitting on your seat with a towell over it.

Lawyers and cops have a field day over this stuff.

One thing I have not seen posted is "Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6"

At my age, any young punks try to do me harm will receive deadly force.
Seen two case's here in the past few years, one died from the un-armed assailant’s, the other used a handgun. The first one is dead, the second case only the punk high on drugs & booze was dead.

If you see someone in your driveway trying to steal your motorcycle, grab your .44, rush out and put a bullet thru the bike's engine! The thief will no doubt not want to steal it and hopefully will go away. If that plan doesn't work...be sure there's another round in your .44.

__________________
Term limits!

This Zimmerman/Martin case has too many facts yet to be confirmed and or learned before I could make anything even near a judgement about what justice would be and who's guilty of what. And no one else in this discussion seems willing to either, which is what I'd expect from the caliber of members on this forum.

The dicussion is extremely informative and mind wrenching which is good practice for our mental processes if or when that moment in life is upon us when we might have to make those split second evaluations and decisions!

This particular case strikes me, like most real encounters, as being muti encounters happening very close together with more than one decision needed to decide on guilt and justice. We hear Mr. Z followed the victim and confronts him; actually the aggressor one could say. Then we hear Mr Z departs and is attacked and assaulted whereupon he uses deadly force to stop Mr. M. Questions abound:

Was M in a backyard more or less illegally?
Did Z follow him and confront M more or less illegally?
Did M attack Z after the confrontation had ended more or less illegally?
Was Z justified to shoot legally when M was besting him illegally?
Seems like lotsa fault to go around.

There's a lot more detail to come out. And the one thing I do know is that I would not want to be a juror on this case especially if Mr. Z doesn't get the death penalty. Those 12 jurors' lives will change forever. Or even try to pick a jury after the nation-wide mass media hysteria.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

This case needs to be settled in the COURTS, Not CNN, MSNBC, FOX, AL Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Nancy Grace, Velez-Mitchel. I'm of the opinion that all the cable news channels and their surrogates should be SUED for the violation of the civil rights of the people they TRY IN THE PRESS.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

Glad I live in Texas, as I sure can't outrun them, and if assaulted they might very well use my own gun against me.
In Texas we do not have to wait till we are assaulted before using deadly force. But In Florida, I really think someone with a CHL ought not to be patrolling for neighborhood watch. He may have been acting in self defense, we don't know all the facts,
but his life is totally ruined, financially as well. But in Texas there will not be any orginization circulating wanted dead or alive posters, other than law enforcement. In Texas deadly force can be used to stop someone escaping with the loot. I think this incident in Florida is not good for those of us with CHL as there will be pressure to change the SYG laws, and I favor this law and I don't believe anyone is going to change it. I also don't think in Florida, Zimmerman can use the SYG law since he initially pursued the other man. I think that will be a contest over whether he acted in self defense under Florida Law.

Nipster,

In Ohio a LOADED MAG is considered a LOADED GUN by itself. So the transportation deal is better with a license because if you don't have one you could be in deep stuff.

Due to the high HOURLY RATE that some ranges charge, some people load up many mags ahead of the range to save time, if you transport and do not have a license, you are breaking the law here.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

The way the Texas Statute reads is as follows regarding your comment. A criminal cannot count on not being shot just because he is running off with the loot. But the legal costs of
doing so may very well more than the property is worth. I suspect Joe Horn, in Pasadena probably spent a lot more on
his legal defense, since that case was thrown out by a grand jury, he still had lots of legal fees. And the property he was protecting was not even his, and the dispatcher told him not to go outside. All such cases like the one in Florida are automatically turned over to a grand jury. There are lots of
people who do not like our laws in Texas. The case in Florida
will have to be tried on the basis of self defense because SYG
probably does not apply. Zimmerman had no evidence that
Martin had committed a crime, nor a felony, either. If the medical evidence shows Martin broke his nose, and left marks on his back, that were recorded and treated, he may be found
not guilty. In which case there will be enormous efforts there to get the laws changed. I for one, am very glad this case did not occur in Texas.

"Texas Penal Code 9.42"
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the others imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

In Ohio it's a concealed HANDGUN license, PERIOD. It doesn't authorize you to carry ANYTHING else. That doesn't mean that you necessarily CAN'T carry anything else, but if you do, it's not in any way by virtue of your CHL. And remember, in Ohio there is NO preemption of local ordinances covering NON-firearm weapons. What may be legal where you live might be illegal on the other side of the street in another community.

If you walk out into the Walmart parking lot & someone is stealing your brand new truck do you shoot him.........absolutely not! If one of your kids is in that truck he's stealing do you shoot? Now you are within your rights, you're protecting family, the truck can be replaced.....even a Ford!

Dick

This was my point.

You walk out into the Walmart parking lot and someone is stealing Your new truck. You TELL them to get lost and THAN they attack You. AT that point You will be defending Your self.
NOT defending Your truck .

Am I making any sense????

I think allllllllll people need to quit trying to try cases like this or any other outside the court system. This guy will never be able to get a fair trial no matter what he did or didnt do. And they talk bout some people being civil rights activists, what bout the shooters right to a fair shake. 62 years an i see things differently.

Absolutely and that's the way it is, at least in Ohio.

Where you get into problems is when you confront somebody about mere "suspicious" behavior, which is in fact not a crime, such as just walking through a particular neighborhood.

On the other hand, mere indignation at being treated as "suspicious" does not EVER justify physical violence of ANY kind. When in a public thoroughfare, you have ZERO duty to respond to questioning by ANY private citizen (and apart from VERY limited exceptions, none to talk to a cop without benefit of counsel). If some random stranger questions your presence in a place in which you have a legal right to be, simply ignore them. Physically attacking them is NEVER justified. If on the other hand, they illegally attempt to restrain you, throw them, beat them, stab or shoot them, as the law allows and necessity demands.

What I think probably happened in the Martin case is that there was a collision of knuckleheads. On the street, it's usually the knucklehead with the gun who wins... at least in the short run.

Merely calling yourself something doesn't make it so.

I've seen both David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People and the North American Man-Boy Love Association referred to as "civil rights" organizations.

I can claim to be 7'8" and the best player in the NBA. That doesn't change the fact that I'm 5'7 1/2" and haven't even WATCHED basketball in thirty years.

One of the most useful lessons that anyone can learn is that there are people who will tell ANY lie, no matter how seemingly asinine on its face if they think it will:

1. benefit them in some way.
2. be believed by a sufficient number of gullible fools.

yup yup yup

Mr. Zimmerman has given the Anti's a Stealth Bomber.

He was instructed by the police on what not to do and continued.

__________________
Doesn't hasta call me Johnson

Zimmerman was on private property, in a gated community. In Florida this changes a lot of rules. He was also involved in the Block Watch program, via the local Police, not the local HOA which is being sued ONLY on the grounds it has insurance and deep pockets. If a barrier was crossed another whole lot of rules change in Florida.

Geoff
Who notes this is going to be a test case and every lawyer on earth will tell you "NEVER be a test case!"